Democratic voters should draft Hillary Clinton for 2012, authors say. AP Photo

New Hampshire voters should draft Hillary

By PATRICK H. CADDELL and DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN | 12/18/11 10:15 PM EST

We argued in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed piece that President Barack Obama should stand down and let Secretary of State Hillary Clinton run as the Democratic presidential nominee in 2012.

We are now calling on Democratic voters nationally — particularly in New Hampshire — to organize a write-in campaign for Clinton. This is something that New Hampshire voters have a long history of doing.

We advocate this Draft Hillary movement not because of the desire to make political mischief — but to put the country on the right course.

It’s clear that Obama has been unable to build consensus and, with the polarizing campaign he is now running, will be unable to govern effectively even if reelected. Only Clinton can commit the Democratic Party — and, indeed, the nation — to a unification and healing process. This could allow Washington, in a bipartisan manner, to finally address the economic and governmental crises that now grip America.

We are facing a crisis of national leadership, so citizens should step up and take charge of their country the way demonstrators in the Middle East did earlier this year. And, stunningly, as the people of Russia are now doing.

It’s time to take the decision about America’s leadership out of the hands of the established powers and return it to the citizens of our country. That opportunity to change U.S. politics will appear in the second week of 2012 in New Hampshire.

To seize this moment two things are required:

First, and most important, ordinary Democrats and independents in New Hampshire should mobilize behind a grass-roots effort to write in Clinton’s name during the Jan. 10 Democratic primary.

Second, a committed group of Democrats with resources and stature needs to help facilitate an authentic citizens’ movement — independent of party structure, Clinton and organized interests — to support a massive New Hampshire write-in campaign and put this before a deeply disaffected electorate.

Read more.)

Can I get my heart into it? Do I want to?

I still think she is the strongest, smartest leader we could have. But she has turned me off in many ways the last few years. If I can wrap my arms around the fact that she is a party animal and some of what she has said and done was under orders, then I can perhaps throw my support behind a fun try at a Write-In vote.

It might mean divorce for me, but then again maybe not. My little O’bot wife is perhaps a sign that this could work. She, the staunchest supporter of his O’liness I knew in 2008, she never ever listens to his speeches anymore. She avoids political news and has shut her ears to the disaster that is his Presidency. Our Vermont O’bot friends who you may recall I had to suffer through the Christmas before the 2008 NH Primary, well I was speaking to one on the phone recently and she flat out told me that Obama is a failure for the Democratice party.

They won’t admit their horrendous mistake of 2007/2008, but they know in their hearts they were so very wrong.

This could be interesting. But like the movements around the world, we’d need a name and it should not include Hillary. This is about bringing America back to the people. This is about Occupy Wall Street and the one former candidate who spoke up about a looming financial crisis when nobody would listen.

Take Back The Party, Renew America Now

RUN – Renew USA Now

Seriously – how can that possibly be? And yet, that seems to be her take:

The call by some members of the black media for African Americans to support President Obama in racial solidarity is a terrible idea. Just as terrible as women supporting women only because of their sex, or any other group viewing the world solely through the narrow prism of their own experience.

If pursued and played by Obama, it would be the worst thing not only for his reelection campaign but also for the country. The man who was elected on a promise of unity — neither black nor white nor red nor blue — can’t now play the race card. Any of his supporters who play that hand will be doing a disservice to themselves and to the nation.

How did this come about?

As Obama’s approval has been slipping, some leaders in the African American media have begun calling on blacks to ignore their concerns and just vote black. Leading the pack is radio host Tom Joyner, who reaches an astonishing one in four black adults. Maybe we could just have Joyner and Rush Limbaugh wrestle each other’s ideas to the mat and skip these tedious debates, primaries and conventions.

Joyner is blunt with his 8 million listeners: “Stick together, black people.”

Again I ask – where the hell Was Ms. Parker in 2008? This is not news. This is SOP for the Obama Campaign. Just the other day, I mentioned Obama’s National Co-Chair, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., and his threats to House members of the Black Caucus to toe the line and stand behind Obama, or face primary challengers (and then doing it anyway, even if they did stab Hillary Clinton in the back and get on board).

But wait, it gets even better with THIS claim by Ms. Parker:

Obama hasn’t played the race card overtly, though recently he did call on a mostly African American audience at the annual Congressional Black Caucus Awards dinner to kick off their bedroom slippers and put on their marching shoes. “Stop grumblin’. Stop cryin’. We are going to press on,” he said. “We’ve got work to do.”

WHAT? Obama has not overtly played the race card? Is she for real? Good grief, where has she been? Did she take one of Sir Richard Branson’s flights to outer space? Has she been living in East Mongolia? Has she not been paying any attention at ALL?

I am just shaking my head in disgust at this revisionist history from Ms. Parker’s keyboard. From Obama’s depiction of John McCain’s campaign as racist (remember this quote? “”And so the only way they figure they’re going to win this election is if they make you scared of me…”), to attacking Geraldine Ferraro and labeling her a racist for something he himself said, forcing her to resign from the Hillary Campaign, Obama has done nothing BUT play the race card. Hell, he just called the Tea Party racist a few months ago!

Ms Parker concludes:

This country has transcended much that was hideous and painful in the course of our evolution. It would be a shame to turn back now.

That it has, but it sure ass hell hasn’t stopped the Obama Campaign,the Obama Administration, and the DNC from labeling anyone who doesn’t support Obama as racists.

For the life of me, I don’t know how Ms. Parker has missed this over the past 3 years, but perhaps you could all remind her of the many and different ways Obama and his Minions have played the race card, from the way the DOJ has handled cases (or not), the assumption of the racist Cambridge police officer, Rep. Clyburn claiming that all ofd Obama’s problems come down to “black vs. white,” and so, so many more. Have at it!

They are creating an opportunity for people who are not part of the establishment of either party to get on the presidential ballot. While I cannot profess to know much about the organization behind this movement, the idea itself is an intriguing one:

For the 68 percent of Americans who said in an ABC/Washington Post poll released Wednesday that they had a negative view of government, the possibility of having a presidential candidate free of the currently gridlocked political parties could be just a few clicks away.

The nonpartisan, nonprofit Americans Elect has collected petition signatures – millions of them [1.6 million in California alone] – in all 50 states to put a “candidate of the people” on the ballot in November 2012. This candidate would be selected through an online draft and nomination process instead of through the traditional Republican and Democratic parties primary and caucus schedule.

“We are creating competition for all these folks who are politically homeless,” said Elliot Ackerman, Americans Elect’s chief operating officer. “A lot of the folks that engage with us are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and those people don’t really have a voice in our political system right now. What we’re doing is really creating an incentive structure so that those individuals will be competed for.”

I understand the sentiment. I too have felt politically homeless since I witnessed the shenanigans of Democrats in the 2008 primaries. Whether one is in favor of Hillary Clinton or not, for her to have achieved a virtual tie in delegates, lead in the popular vote and still be cast aside at the Convention as the clear loser was the final disgrace in a contest fraught with sexist hazing and character assassination. Her opponent, however, received rose petals and caresses from the media daily, coupled with a startling lack of examination for his pie-in-the-sky – and often contradictory — campaign promises.

But Hillary’s treatment – and the disgraceful treatment her 18,000,000 supporters received at the hands of the mainstream media had another effect on the populace. We saw that the media, in the name of anointing their favored candidate was not above calling millions of Americans racist to threaten and keep them in line. Not to mention fellow Democrats calling us every dirty name in the book for supporting the “ho” and not the “bro.”

When we were called “low information, dried-up Archie Bunkers” by pundits and party powerful alike, many of us for the first time stepped back from the party we stood with for many years, ostracized and rejected. For the first time we felt what it must be like to be a conservative in this country, insulted regularly by the bulk of mainstream media and by many elitists in the DNC. As someone who made hundreds of GOTV calls around the country, I found that the “backwoods hillbilly” meme the media tried to sell was a lie. The mainstream media continues to hemorrhage credibility. There are many like me, waking up from a kool-aid stupor, no longer willing to accept demagogic ranting of the left or right at face value when its sole purpose is to fill Party coffers.

Continued gridlock in Washington, the refusal of either side to let productive legislation be crafted if it is contrary to the interests of politicians’ powerful backers, or partisan jockeying to prevent the other side from getting credit for a win has rendered us, for all intents and purposes, without advocates in Washington – regardless of where we fit in the progressive/conservative spectrum.

So far, the group has secured a spot on the ballot in six states, has collected the required number of signatures in four states and has about half the necessary signatures in four other states. Americans Elect spokeswoman Ileana Wachtel said the group would begin the petition process in seven more states within the week.

[snip]

The eventual nominee can be a member of either party or an independent but must chose a vice presidential running mate who is from a different party. Ackerman said he expected many of the losing GOP presidential candidates to move into the Americans Elect primary process after Republicans chose their nominee.

[snip]

“In the primaries you have to go far to the right or far to the left and tickets are having a hard time tacking back to the center,” he said. “Americans Elect allows a ticket to run authentically without having to go to extremes in the primary.”

A coalition ticket is an inviting notion although I cannot imagine who would be willing to abandon their own party in order to couple with the ‘enemy.’ A Sarah Palin perhaps…

While I am skeptical an idea like this can take hold to upend those currently in control of our two parties, its very existence, along with the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street should really give those in power something to worry about. Democrats have mistakenly tried to co-opt the current disorganized (and sometimes confused) OWS protests as their own version of the more conservative Tea Party movement, yet increasingly OWS is making clear they feel President Obama has sold out to Wall Street. Republicans also worked to co-opt the Tea Party movement, with mixed results.

Congressional approval is at an all time low. President Obama’s poll numbers continue to tank. Polling also reports that Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, even the currently downward trending Gov. Rick Perry could all beat Obama next year. Even still, Republicans are not all that enthusiastic about their choices. Neither party is anxious to undo the Gordian knot of special (read big money) interests that actually do the governing in this country. The phrase “politically homeless” rings as true as it is painful. To feel like it is not possible to trust the majority of our elected officials to do the right thing leaves many feeling bound and gagged. Americans are inching closer to that pitchfork moment.

Is the Americans Elect concept a good one? If so, who would you want on such a coalition ticket? And do you think there is any hope we can get ever move past the current plutocracy? We don’t want to split the vote and keep an ineffectual incumbent in office, but in the long run would enough dissatisfaction expressed through these myriad movements around the country actually lead to reform of our system?

Only when the failing crop currently in office know they are about to lose their jobs do we have a prayer that they will finally start to do their jobs. And yet, if they are fired, as long as they can count on a ritzy “K” street paycheck or some cushy commentating gig on CNN – what muscles can we flex to keep them honest? The teat is still flowing…

Oh, wait – I know. Obama was NOT great on women’s issues, he did not treat women well and his sexism was in evidence frequently on the campaign trail, his wife, too. Seriously, do I need to provide evidence to support that after all this time, and the numerous links/examples? Seriously? Okay – here is one more, with some bonus coverage of how misogynistic the media was:

Click here to view the embedded video.

And then comes this report from the Washington Post in a review of the new Ron Suskind book, Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington and the Education of a President. To say it is not glowing about how women – upper level women – were treated in the Obama Administration is putting it mildly:

Friction about the roles of women in the Obama White House grew so intense during the first two years of the president’s tenure that he was forced to take steps to reassure senior women on his staff that he valued their presence and their input.

At a dinner in November 2009, several senior female aides complained directly to the president that men enjoyed greater access to him and often muscled them out of key policy discussions.

Those tensions prompted Obama, urged on by senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, to elevate more women into senior White House positions, recognize them more during staff meetings and increase the female presence in the upper ranks of the reelection campaign. “There were some issues early on with women feeling as though they hadn’t figured out what their role was going to be on the senior team at the White House,” Jarrett said in an interview Monday. “Most of the women hadn’t worked on the campaign, and so they didn’t have a personal relationship with the president.”

Uh huh. But that is not the full story. It wasn’t just that some of these women weren’t involved in the campaign. This isn’t about one group being outsiders trying to get into the inner circle, no, not at all. It was women-specific:

[snip] One of the most striking quotes in the book came from former White House communications director Anita Dunn, who was quoted as saying that, “this place would be in court for a hostile workplace. . . . Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”

Dunn says she was quoted out of context and told The Post on Friday that she told Suskind “point blank” that the White House was not a hostile work environment.

On Monday, Suskind allowed a Post reporter to review a recorded excerpt of the original interview, which took place over the telephone in April. In that conversation, Dunn is heard telling Suskind about a conversation she had with Jarrett.

“I remember once I told Valerie that, I said if it weren’t for the president, this place would be in court for a hostile workplace,” Dunn is heard telling Suskind. “Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.” [snip]

So first, Dunn tells the truth, then tries to lie to cover up for Obama, but her own voice confirms this quote, “Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.” That is mighty damning, indeed (and honestly, Anita, STOP COVERING FOR THIS MAN! Good grief. Have a little self-respect already.).

But Dunn was not the only one:

Other episodes were relayed to Suskind by Christina Romer, former chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers, whose disputes with Summers have been widely reported, including in an earlier book on Obama’s White House by journalist Jonathan Alter.

Romer is quoted by Suskind saying, after being excluded by Summers at a meeting, “I felt like a piece of meat.”

Holy smokes. These two women were not some underlings who resented not being higher up in the chain. No, these two women had pretty prominent positions. Wow. That is an incredible statement. And it goes on from there. Click here to read the rest of the article.

I might add, what makes that statement so striking is that most women know how incredibly difficult it is to prove that kind of “workplace” hostility. Too often, the perpetrators are defended, and circle the wagons to protect them. Heck, as noted, even Dunn tried to protect Obama from the charge. So it is telling indeed that she used that phrase in her conversation with Jarrett. Telling, indeed.

I wish I was surprised. I am not. When Obama made Jon Favreau the Head White House Speechwriter, and allowed him to retain that position even after the following photo came to light, I knew that was the kind of ship Obama would be running:

And that was AFTER then-Senator Clinton had been named as Obama’s Secretary of State choice.

Yeah. That sums up how things were going in the Obama Administration perfectly, don’t you think? Just how much do you think has changed now? Let’s hear it!

And it is pissing me off. Seriously. I don’t know if it is the off-the-chart pain levels I am enduring, or what, but it is pissing me off that – all of a sudden – the people who were in a position to make clear how inept Obama was, is, and would be, failed to convey that message adequately. No, not Cheney – I mean the media and Democratic political pundits who should have known, and most likely did know, better, but went-along-to-get-along so they could keep blathering on CNN, MSNBC, or whatever channel would have them. They rode this wave of a created back story of who Obama was, one that did not match the REALITY of who he was, by his handlers and string pullers rather than DOING THEIR JOBS, and now, NOW, they are coming out saying, “oh, yeah – Hillary would have been SO much better” after calling her, her husband, and her supporters a bunch of racist gun and Bible toters who could barely get dressed in the morning. All I can say is, BITE ME.

Ahem. Sorry. I have no patience or tolerance for this crap right now. Clinton would have been the best, they knew it then, but sexism trumps all any day of the week, and they sure as hell were not going to support any old (!) woman over a biracial freshman senator. Nosirree bob. Even as I write that one sentence – a freshman senator beating out a woman who had a vastly superior resume was treated like crap by these people in her own party AND in the media. And now they come crying saying it should have been her? Please. They CHOSE him over her. (Photo credit: blackagendareport.com)

It is not like the information wasn’t out there for all the world to see. They chose to ignore it, they chose to cover it up (thank you, JournoListers and the LA Times to name just two more), they failed to vet, they failed to fact check, they failed to keep their emotions in check, they failed, failed, failed at their jobs, and now we are all paying the price. For instance, the NY Times, and other outlets, repeatedly have pushed the meme that Obama is even keeled, even tempered, and unshakeable. It is a pile of horse manure. They have just ignored his snippyness, arrogance, and short fuse because it did not fit the image they – the media – were crafting for him (no doubt at the insistance of the Davids, Plouffe and Axelrod).

The truth was out there, though. Consider the opening paragraphs of this story from a reporter who liked Obama, but was professional enough to be honest about him in his extensive piece, “Barack Obama And Me“:

It’s not quite eight in the morning and Barack Obama is on the phone screaming at me. He liked the story I wrote about him a couple weeks ago, but not this garbage.

Months earlier, a reporter friend told me she overheard Obama call me an asshole at a political fund-raiser. Now here he is blasting me from hundreds of miles away for a story that just went online but hasn’t yet hit local newsstands.

It’s the first time I ever heard him yell, and I’m trembling as I set down the phone. I sit frozen at my desk for several minutes, stunned.

This is an extensive, in-depth piece, which goes into Emil Jones, Obama’s “kingmaker,” and so, so much more. But one other piece I cannot resist putting in since I have mentioned is his fake Southern accent (grrrrr):

My view of Obama then wasn’t all that different from the image he projects now. He was smart, confident, charismatic and liberal. One thing I can say is, I never heard him launch into the preacher-man voice he now employs during speeches. He sounded vanilla, and activists in his mostly black district often chided him for it.

My point, and as Ellen Degeneres would say, I do have one, is that the information was there, from this author, to John Kass, Lynn Sweet, and others in the Chicago area, but the MSM refused to upset the apple cart, supporting the myth of Obama, not the fact of Obama. All I can say is, thanks shitloads for that, you worthless hacks. Look where your complete and utter lack of professionalism got us. Told you I have no patience for this right now.

And for the love of all that is holy, stop pushing Hillary NOW. The time is long past,t he damage done. She is not going to run. She has made that abundantly clear. Party before country, she will not go up against her boss, and even if she did, it is too late. She has already been touting his policies all over the globe. If she now claimed she didn’t support any of them, but hawked them anyway, well, do I really need to finish that thought for you? I didn’t think so.

So, yeah – I have had it with the handwringing, coulda, woulda, shoulda crapola the MSM, and some political pundits, are now peddling. They should have done their homework before the last election instead of crying about it now that the damage is done. They have no one to blame but themselves, and believe you me, they deserve all the blame they get.

Here’s a thought – maybe it isn’t just those in DC who deserve to be liberated from their political positions, but the vast majority of “journalists,” too. I am sure there are a whole bunch of real journalists out there looking for jobs. Wouldn’t that be a refreshing change? Journalists who did the groundwork, did their HOMEwork, and didn’t insert their opinion into their stories? Oh, yes – now THAT is some “change” for which we can “hope.”

Until then, just spare me the current MSM/pundit outrage at what should have been. Clinton was the best choice, bar none, and you backed the wrong horse in that race for the most superficial of reasons. Admit that, acknowledge that, and for heaven’s sake, DO YOUR JOBS already. And stop pissing me off.

How about you?

Hillary Clinton salutes the delegates at the Democratic National Convention in 2008

Like most of our long-time regular readers, and nearly all of our writers, I was drawn to No Quarter in 2008 because it was supporting Hillary Clinton in her campaign for the presidency.  NQ was one of several blogs I was reading as I scoured the Internet for people supporting her.  As the primary season wound down in May, we were brought closer together as a community by the our outrage at the machinations of the Democratic National Committee.

Even as far back as February, many Democratic leaders were screeching that she should admit defeat and endorse Obama, but she fought on, winning many important primaries.  But the delegate count was going in Obama’s favor because of the Chicago-style tactics used by the Obama camp at the caucuses. Bus in a bunch of hooligans and overwhelm the locals.  Caucuses that used to be like PTA meetings were turned into events more akin to grudge-match high school basketball games.

Then, on that fateful day in May, the DNC awarded some of Hillary’s Minnesota Michigan delegates to Obama, delegates that she had won in her primary victory.  They did this on the ridiculous premise that “he would have won those delegates if he had been on the ballot.”  That whole affair was too convoluted to write about in any condensed form, but it was the beginning of the end of the Democratic Party as we knew it.

Most of us know this history, and I’m not trying to preach to the choir, but I do want to remind some of you, and to inform our newer readers, of what brought No Quarter together as a community in 2008.  We were a community mostly comprised of pissed off Democrats and Independents who supported Hillary Clinton as the best candidate for president, and who knew that Obama was unqualified for the most important job in the world.  Not only was (is!) he unqualified, but he was a complete unknown.  He is still a man hiding his past, a man with unsavory associates and unproven credentials.

We, as a community, were horrified at the unfairness of the way the Democratic Party treated Hillary in that primary season, doing their best to force her out so they could “unify” the party long before the official nomination at the convention.  That was a major part of what brought people together here at NQ and some other pro-Hillary blogs.  Some of those other blogs folded when she conceded the race, but we hung together, and NQ is still going, although I barely recognize it sometimes, compared to what we were in 2008 and 2009.

After that wretched DNC meeting at the end of May, 2008, when the committee members basically told Hillary to concede in the name of “party unity,” a small group of her backers coalesced under the banner of P.U.M.A.

On Monday, August 22, 2011, HelenK posted this in the comments of my piece “Lady Lynn Speaks Out”:

“My only problem was her [Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild] being advertised as the original PUMA.
She was not.  That title belongs to a commenter at the Confluence.
on May 31 2008  SM77 posted this

P party
U unity
M my
A ass

No one has ever thanked her for that, but many have used the title.”

To which the lovely oowawa replied:

Couldn’t have said it better myself!

The whole message of PUMA folks was to tell the DNC that we intended to defy Party Unity and continue to support Hillary’s campaign against Obama.  The intention was to show Hillary and her campaign team that she had a support group that wanted her to take her fight all the way to the National Convention, and to insist on a delegate count to decide the nomination.

The whole PUMA thing was unorganized, and even had a secondary branch that used different words for the acronym of PUMA, but we saw ourselves as more powerful than we were.  We assumed that we spoke for millions of Hillary Clinton supporters when we insisted that the Democratic Party follow the rules that were always followed by tradition at the national conventions of both major parties up until that time:

• That all candidates have the right to continue campaigning until the Convention decides the nominee;
• That delegates are the ones who decide the nomination, not the DNC;
• That delegates cast their votes on the Convention floor;
• That Super Delegates are free to vote for whomever they choose; and
• That pledged delegates can change their votes if there is no winner on the first ballot.

We wanted Hillary to fight to the end, to demand the delegate votes, and then if she lost the vote,  TO JUMP UP ON THAT STAGE AND TELL THE WORLD WHAT A CRIMINAL JACKASS, WORTHLESS PIECE OF EXCREMENT, RACIST KNOW-NOTHING, NARCISSISTIC COMMUNIST ASSHOLE OBAMA IS!!!

Well, we didn’t want her to give up without a fight.

But, let’s get realistic here.  We were a very small faction, and we were only observers to the political process.  If all of the people who ever thought of considering themselves PUMAs had gathered together in one place at one time and presented ourselves as a unified political bloc, we still would have been too small a group to have any real impact on Hillary’s decisions.

We know she appreciated our support, and a few PUMAs made the news a few times that summer as a “curiosity” (translation: fringe lunatics), but Hillary had BIG considerations that went far beyond her support groups.  She had to think about the Big Picture, and consider her future, as well as Bill’s legacy as a former President.

Let’s try to look at things from her perspective.  We can’t walk a mile in her shoes, but just try to think about what she had to consider in making her decisions that year.

1. She is a Democrat, and given that this is a 2-party country, and 3^rd party candidates have never come close to winning the presidency, she was not about to desert the Party that elected her husband to the presidency twice, and her to the Senate twice;
2. Historically, when one of the two major political parties has a floor fight for the nomination, they go on to lose the general election (exceptions are few);
3. In politics, as in sports or other competitions, we expect winners to enjoy their victory but also to speak well of their “worthy opponent” – and losers are expected to congratulate the victor and be a “good sport” about their loss, because in our society we hate “sore losers”;
4. If she expected to continue to enjoy the respect of her peers in the Senate and the voters who supported her, she had to accept that she did not have enough delegates to win the nomination — regardless of how unfairly the process had played out that year — and therefore, she had to concede graciously, which she did in grand form;
5. If she had decided to challenge Obama’s candidacy on the basis of the Natural Born Citizen controversy, she would have had to have irrefutable proof (which may not even exist), and even with such proof in hand, it would have been challenged in court and in the court of public opinion, which would have split the party enough to lose the general election, and possibly split the party into two parties, giving the Republicans a lock on winning all future elections;
6. The same applies to any other allegations the Clintons may have made against Obama, in that the potential damage done to the party and the future of American politics would far outweigh any potential gain for Hillary and/or Bill, which would have probably made them political pariahs – they would be perceived as “dirty fighters, “ “mudslingers,” “racists,” “traitors to the Party,” and “self-serving spoilsports,” at the very least.

Now think back again to what we were saying at NQ, what the PUMAs were saying, after she conceded the nomination to Obama and began to campaign for him.  Some were saying, “Well, he’d BETTER offer her the Vice President slot!”  Others, like myself, thought VP to be a meaningless and powerless position, and wanted something better for her.  Various members of our NQ writers and readers tossed around different positions that would be a fitting reward for her.  Some thought Supreme Court justice, a lifetime position, would be the best fit for her.  Different Cabinet positions were discussed, but seriously, the best possible Cabinet position of all is Secretary of State, and that’s what she got.  It’s almost like being co-president in its stature.  And it turns out to be an extremely good fit for her talents, her nature, and her abilities.  After serving as SOS and the rest of her history, nobody could ever challenge her qualifications for the presidency again.

Now, honestly, I ask those of you who say she should have turned down a position in this administration, even the prestigious and mostly-independent position of SOS, what were her real options?  Sure, she could have gone back to her Senate seat, like John Kerry and John McCain did.  It’s relative obscurity after running for Prez, but yeah, she could have just said “no thanks” and gone back to her Senate office.

But what if she was genuinely concerned about what would become of U.S. foreign policy under a naïve novice like Obama?  What if she considered who else there was to take that position… and recoiled in horror at the thought of Valerie Jarrett or John Kerry in that highly important position?

Can you imagine, or at least TRY to imagine, what her private conversations would have been like with her husband, Bill Clinton, 2-term President?  Don’t you think he would have advised and encouraged her to take the appointment to Secretary of State?  Don’t you think she would have felt that taking the position of SOS was not only a huge promotion from Senator, but that she could help prevent diplomatic disasters?

Don’t you see how becoming SOS has allowed her to gain literally “a world of experience” and that it’s the highest point in her personal and professional life thus far?  I just don’t see how she could have turned it down.  Why should she?  Just to appease some of her hard-line followers?

Lately,  I see people on this blog who once supported her, praised her, defended her, and fought for her, who now have turned against her.  Some even use the same vilification and innuendos the Republicans have used against her and Bill for two decades.  And frankly, it ties my stomach in knots.

OK, look folks, let me lay it out in personal terms.  I’m an independent voter, and sometimes I like third parties and I truly wish we had a 3-party system of Progressives, Moderates, and Conservatives.  I could then spread my votes between those three with a clear conscience.  But I still have some deep grievances with the Republican Party.  Ken Starr and Dick Cheney anyone? Although I may support any Republican against Obama, I will never be a Republican supporter in general, and at this point, I don’t even see an electable Republican candidate that I like.

I cannot forget the many years that I fought for old-fashioned Liberal causes.  I was a Kennedy devotee as a teenager.   I have always been left of center, and I always will be, although I have become more conservative in some ways, now that I’m an old man who calls 50-year-olds “kids.”  I have always been a Clinton supporter, both Bill and Hill.  I have rarely supported Republican politicians, although I’ve voted for some when the Democrat was no good.

So when I see people who used to support the Clintons and who now revile them for working for the good of the world in the only way they can – through the Democratic Administration – I feel like a kid watching his parents having a drunken brawl.  It makes me just sick at heart.

I don’t know if Hillary is preparing herself for a future run at the presidency, or if she is just excelling at the highest position she’ll ever hold, while gaining the admiration of most of the world.  Either way, I support her.

Has she said some things I wish she hadn’t?  Of course!  Do I support every decision she’s made as SOS or every position she’s taken publicly as the voice of this administration?  Hell, no!!  But do I think she is serving her country admirably and making a damn fine showing of herself as SOS?  Damn straight!!

I know some of you think that by becoming a part of the Obama administration that she is “just as bad as him.”  I’m sorry, but I will never accept that argument.  To me, that like saying that all writers here at NQ are just as bad good as Larry Johnson.  That’s just absurd!

We all agree that there is much to despise about Obama, and a whole different set of things to despise about the people who helped get him elected.  We all know what a liar he is, how lazy he is, how ill-equipped for the job he is, and how there are many things about his secret life that may legally disqualify him from being president, or should land him in prison.  We agree on 98% of those things we hate about him.

But don’t expect me, or many others here, to share your recently-acquired aversion to the Clintons, or your recent (apparent) conversion to Republican conservatism.  We have much we agree on, and we all are entitled to our opinions, but many of us here still support Hillary Clinton and think highly of her and her husband.

Most of us agree that we will vote for the Republican nominee for President this election, mostly to get rid of Obama.  Some have made the full conversion to the Republican Party, and more power to them.  Some are dabbling with Republicanism the way a pre-teen tries a cigarette for the first time.  Others will be voting for the Republican with the same enthusiasm as a pretty boy’s first day in prison.

I love reading your opinions, and we have all learned so much from each other.  We have grown together.  We have changed with time and circumstance.  One thing hasn’t changed for me:  I still love Hill and Bill.

I’ve always worked to try to be friends with everyone of you on this blog, even when I disagree with you.  I recognize that a few of you are more political than me, some are much more educated, and some of you just blow me away with your depth.  Certainly not all of you, but a few.  And I would be disappointed if we all agreed on everything!  How boring!

But please try to understand that at this point in time, there are lots of people with buyer’s remorse for having supported Obama over Hillary, and there are even people talking about her mounting a challenge to Obama and running against him again.  That won’t happen, but still, I enjoy hearing it.

There is a loud chorus of “I TOLD YOU SO!” emanating from this blog and others, as the Kool-Aid wears off and people start realizing what a disappointment Obama is to them.  People all over the country are slapping their foreheads and saying, “We should have voted for Hillary!”

Personally, I can’t see her mounting a competitive challenge to Obama.  But if he steps aside or implodes, it’s pretty clear who the Democrats will run to.  And I, for one, will be grinning ear to ear!

I received the following photos from my friend, Artemis, this morning. I think this sums up perfectly the difference between who we could have had, and who we have.

Hillary Clinton in the rain:

And then there is Obama in the rain:

Enough said, though feel free to share your opinions!

UPDATE: Apologies for not having the photo credits, but the friend who sent the email let me know she got the photos from our friend, Uppity Woman’s site (though from where Uppity got them, I don’t know). Uppity has an outstanding post along the lines of this one (though better – Uppity Woman ROCKS). Here is the link to, “He’s Stolen Everything ELSE, But He Can’t Steal My HOPE!“

Just from the title of this Sheila Marikar ABC report, you get a hint of a bias. The article doesn’t help to dispel that sensation, rather it escalates it:

There’s the stereotype of the Sarah Palin supporter, and then there’s Sonnie Johnson.

The 30-year-old African-American mother and wife is featured in “The Undefeated” as one of the many people Palin captivated when John McCain thrust her onto the national stage as his vice presidential running mate in 2008. In Pella, Iowa today for the premiere of the film, Johnson said she latched on to Palin when the former Alaska governor took the stage at the Republican National Convention.

“We were watching it on TV and my daughter was like, ‘A girl can be president?,’” Johnson recalled. “And I said, ‘Yes, baby, girls can do anything.’ That was the moment — I saw that look in my daughter’s eye, that anything in possible. The next week, I went to my very first political event, and that was to see Sarah Palin. John McCain and Sarah Palin.”

Johnson has become increasingly involved in the tea party since then, speaking at tea party events around her native Virginia. She’ll give the keynote address at an event held by the Charlottesville, VA. tea party on the Fourth of July with her young daughter by her side. [snip]

Obviously, the elephant in the room is that Hillary Clinton had run to be president, but she was not the party’s pick (and I use those words deliberately). So that Johnson’s daughter saw Palin as a potential president if McCain won is a difference. Palin was on the ticket, Clinton (unfortunately) was not.

That being said, there are so many glaring issues wrong with the entire way Marikar framed this piece that I barely know where to start. First, there is the whole “stereotype” assumption made by this “reporter.” One of the comments summed it up pretty succinctly:

VG; “stereotype” Who put the stereotype on Palin?? All you Obama loving scumbags in the corrupt MSM. You people make me sick.

I think many of us can appreciate this person’s sentiment about the circular practice of the MSM – castigate and attack, then stand back and “report” people regurgitating back the attacks launched, then explain that as the reality of the situation.

There were a few more comments I must share with you, beginning with the issue of women:

John; Unfortunately, women can’t be president. Just watching the vitriol that has been thrown at Sarah Palin makes that clear. The attacks on her family have been disgraceful. The attempts to dig through 24,000 pages of her email to try to find any dirt also makes it clear that America is not ready for a female leader. Best to tell our daughters to become teachers or mothers so they don’t become the next woman to be Palinized….

Jim (in response to Katherine); “There was a woman running in the Dem Primary, and she was pilloried by the misogynistic media… Palin got it X2, and she is still standing, and appears to be stronger than ever. Just sayin’.”

@Katherine: Couldn’t have said it better. I am an ex-Democrat and have had it with the way the democratic party takes the women constituency for granted. I am sick of how they treated Hillary. This was a woman that was many times more accomplished than Obama and after Obama’s presidency we can safely say she would have been many times more effective as a president. Now they are doing the same thing to Palin. I am just sick of the venom that has been thrown at her – just sick of it. [snip]

Amen, amen, and amen – I could not agree more. Many of you know that this has been my refrain about the Democratic Party, Obama, and the blatant, virulent misogyny they have been spewing our way.

But there is another piece to all of this:

[snip] “She’ll be on stage with me,” Johnson said. “I want to get her involved, little by little. I like to say that for the black community, nothing will change until we learn to love our children more than we love the Democratic party.”

After Stephen K. Bannon cast her in his 2010 documentary about conservative women leaders, “Fire From the Heartland,” he asked Johnson to speak about Palin’s influence on her for “The Undefeated.” Other tea party personalities have failed to capture Johnson’s attention as Palin has.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy moley – calling out the black community for its allegiance to the Democrats is a mighty interesting turn. No doubt, that will raise some eyebrows, along with charges of being an “Uncle Tom.” I don’t know about you, but it does seem that whenever a black person does not subscribe to a particular point of view they are, by necessity, an “Uncle Tom.” I thought this comment by Colint summer it up:

Black woman as “unlikely” supporter…. funny…. imagine that, a black who isn’t brainwashed into loving the useless Democrats. Wow… what a revelation.

Could she have figured out the lie… figured out that the Democrats are race baiters?

Good question. Of course, Ms. Johnson would not have to look far. Heck, she need look no farther than my representative, Jim Clyburn, to see numerous instances of race baiting.

I don’t know about you, but I found this to be a pretty interesting glimpse into both how the MSM tries to package information, and how more people are not buying what they are selling. Maybe there really is hope yet.

UPDATE: Speaking of the media, The Hollywood Reporter has a glimpse into the new movie, “The Undefeated”. Hold onto your hats, this is not for the faint of heart:

[snip] The movie begins with Sen. John McCain introducing his running mate, then quickly cuts to the Hollywood sign, and the music turns ominous. A TV news anchor says, “Hollywood has a new favorite pastime: taking aim at Sarah Palin.”

Then the celebrity montage begins: Damon likens Palin to a “really bad Disney movie” and says she’s “really scary”; Letterman attacks her, and the discourse descends in to the filthy from there. Maher insults her on his TV show, Madonna screams obscenities about her while on stage, and comedians use graphic, severely bleeped language to describe Palin and the intensity with which they “hate her.”

When the montage is through, the screen goes dark and a Bible verse comes into focus: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, indeed we will. And the fruits being sown by these people against a woman they have never met, using the vilest of language to describe her, and even attacking her special needs child, says it all.

Freshman Senator Marco Rubio is often discussed as a contender and future star of the Republican Party in part because of his narrative, and in part because he is telegenic. Not to take away from his other qualifications or accomplishments, but his message, thus far anyway, is fairly generic. Unlike some we could name, at least Rubio acknowledges he has a way to travel before being ready for high office.

And while Christie is the chief executive of his state and one might argue he is more qualified to govern than the man currently occupying the Oval Office, Christie himself has pointed to his short tenure as an obstacle. And what is his foreign policy experience? Even if one believes Christie is off to a good start, it is a tad early to tell how his policies and behavior will benefit his state over time. Shouldn’t we wait a little longer to find this out before pushing the guy into a job he may not be ready for? Haven’t our political geniuses done that already?

We are in a mess that will take time to correct and someone with not only the willingness but the ability to do it. Wouldn’t the mess be a little less messy if we elected a policy wonk and experienced hand? Perhaps someone less magnetic but with some know-how, a clue as to policy, a record of working with Congress effectively, a strong understanding of economics and the workings of the business community? Or are we content with “Yes we can” speeches and viral You Tube videos?

Without detracting from Governor Christie, it appears Mr. Phillips et al are most concerned with having a Republican contender who is not afraid to tell the President off. That may also have accounted for Donald Trump’s momentary appeal. They are looking for magnetism to fill the enthusiasm gap. But while I agree any opponent needs to take the fight to President Obama, both sides need more than rhetoric this time out. 2008 was about the cult of personality. Celebrity had more value than solid smarts. Just ask Hillary Clinton about that one.

How many Americans have been reduced to digesting our politicians in slogan form; readily accepting pabulum fed to them by mainstream media? If voters who seem to have a problem doing research into someone’s voting record keep following their current patterns, we will merely ricochet from one personality and one extreme to another.

Practicing reactive politics keeps us distracted, looking for new “enemies” and wedge issues rather than solving problems. We are manipulated daily. Eight years of the neo-con agenda pushed many into the arms of Obama. In 2006, Democrats took back Congress, In 2010, we ping-ponged back the other way. But is either side really doing anything to help? Or are voters hearing “words, just words” from their respective group while we get more demagoguery and few adult solutions.
As the late George Carlin once said:

“You think you have choice in this country? Here are your choices: leaded or unleaded, window or aisle, regular or decaf.”

I came up with a policy of my own at the voting booth. I vote for whoever the media does not want. I am beginning to see that I also have to vote for whoever each respective party does not want.

In tandem with Mr. Phillips, Jay Cost published a piece the other day entitled “Just How Big a Deal Is Enthusiasm.” He avers it would be better for a candidate to be a little less exciting and better able to execute — and hold their support — once they got into office, rather than to seduce and later disappoint.

Incumbency, pretty sound bites and huge campaign war chests notwithstanding, I would respectfully suggest that from here on out both parties look for candidates who have the best interests of Main Street at heart and the record to prove it before we anxiously and recklessly shove them onto a national ballot.

I tried for months to find people willing to lace into her. None would, not even politicians and TV blowhards who had once catalogued her distortions and dined out on despising her.

Her distortions? More on that later. Despite Alter suffering from Clinton Derangement Syndrome, he offers Hillary many compliments although you can swear you hear him grinding his teeth as you read them. He notes Hillary’s punishing pace, mastery of the issues and largely successful efforts to revitalize and empower the State Department and USAID, in this her ninth year as “America’s most admired woman.”

The article is a tome and I kept digging to find his endgame. While he elevates Hillary from the old label of inconvenient harpy, he describes her as Obama’s “supplicant” — something that brings joy to Alter’s sexist heart, I’m sure. He at all times paints President Obama as her intellectual equal and even superior, all evidence to the contrary.

Alter refers to Bill Clinton as “needy” and avers that Hillary and Obama have a great deal in common in the “discipline department.” Given President Obama’s 65 golf outings in two years, preoccupation with choosing the NCAA final four and obsessing over blogger websites, Alter’s comparison is a bit odd. The horrible botching of the bin Laden SEAL mission narrative indicates a White House that is amateur hour. Secretary Clinton had nothing to do with that one.

Even Alter must acknowledge her staff tells it like it is:

[A]ides complain that Hillary’s creative ideas are often stymied by an inexperienced White House that doesn’t understand the role of drama and stagecraft in diplomacy. They say that Hillary is the daring, decisive risktaker, while the president is hampered by slow reflexes and an overly cautious and unimaginative approach…
and…
It is “Hillary [who] has long wanted the president to do more outreach to heads of state.”

Having been in the WH since 1993, she understands the value of this better than Obama ever could.

According to Alter, Obama is a noble if reluctant warrior and Hillary is occasionally out of the loop and power structure, taking orders from her omniscient master. Yet the likely truth is that Obama’s “supplicant” must regularly school a neophyte with naive ideas about foreign policy –a man who has carved out a career peppered with vacillation and foot-dragging. Alter states:

Even as she navigates these choppy waters, Hillary’s own vessel is solid and surprisingly leakproof. One of the least-noticed changes in American public life is how she has been transformed from a subject of constant gossip and calumny into a figure of consequence and little controversy. There are structural reasons: secretaries of state always exist in a zone slightly above grubby politics, which is meant—in theory, at least—to stop at the water’s edge. The right-wing attack machine can apparently concentrate only on one or two villains at a time, and since 2008, it has been Obama’s and Nancy Pelosi’s turn in the barrel, not Hillary’s.

Fib much? How about the left wing attack machine that tried to rip Hillary limb from limb daily? Millions have still not forgotten that one. President Obama would wilt like a hothouse flower if he had endured one tenth the vitriol Hillary has received from both sides these past twenty years. Alter also complains of her guarded nature with reporters but having been burned by people like him in the past, who can blame her.

As a counterpoint to Alter’s portrait, I encourage you to read her exclusive interview with Jeff Goldberg of The Atlantic, The Chinese System is Doomed, Leaders on a Fool’s Errand, as she discusses the Middle East, China, the motives behind some of her questionable descriptions of certain leaders, our need for a new civilian driven statecraft and the Israel-Palestine conflict. Her candor is much in evidence, indicating it is Alter (and his ilk) whom she does not consider trustworthy. She is more than willing to share in depth information where she suspects she will get a fair hearing. Goldberg indicates he thinks she is the best to broker a peace in the Israel-Palestinian conflict and there are few people who would be trusted more than she. I’ll have more on that in a later post.

Back to Alter for more teeth gnashing, where he also obliquely admits she would have been much better and more strategic in dealing with Republicans in Congress than Obama:

When budget season arrived this year and the departments all faced drastic cuts, Hillary used a Cabinet meeting to offer tips on how to avoid making cuts that would affect vulnerable people—children, the elderly—and look bad politically. (She recalled that Newt Gingrich’s effort to slash the school-lunch program, which put Gingrich on the defensive, was the real turning point in the 1995 budget debate.) Several second-tier Cabinet members thought it one of the most useful White House meetings they had ever attended.

Alter points out “[Obama] knows that she represents the United States better than anyone but him and is—to the surprise of many Obama veterans—refreshingly low-maintenance.” How about no maintenance. She represents our country with gravitas, optimism and a clearly unapologetic tone. Now that is refreshing.

While Clinton is always careful to respect the chain of command, her larger purpose is to rebuild our standing and further our interests – and the interest of women and girls globally. Her philosophy is her own and not derived from the man to whom she is “supplicant”. This makes mincemeat of the argument that she is working to forward Obama’s “agenda.” She is working to progress America. While her loyalty as an operative is without question, her goals transcend who happens to be in the oval office. One of her agendas is the importance of maintaining internet freedom, a subject she has spoken about loudly and repeatedly.

Alter shares a picture of a highly capable, hands-on chief executive. A no frills, dogged operative and loyal friend:

“The secretary runs a brisk, no-nonsense meeting.”

“She’s looking at the guts of how we work,” says Dr. Raj Shah, who runs USAID.”

“Hillary prides herself on sweating the small stuff, too. She’s big on feedback—an intranet “Secretary’s Sounding Board” is bringing the suggestion box into the modern age. She gets high marks from the high-tech community for “21st-century statecraft.”

Hillary draws a distinction between focusing on relations with governments (the locus of diplomacy for hundreds of years) and stimulating change in societies, where the results are less controllable but ultimately more profound. She clearly wants to try both at once…

Alter even discusses how sturdy she is physically – aging well, wearing well and turning out to be sweeter than the idiots in the media have pretended all these years. He compliments her “good skin” and the great genes she inherited from her still healthy 92-year-old mother.

Really, Jonathan? Um. Okay.

Alter avers:

All of this is relevant politically because it means that in 2016, when she’s 68, she is unlikely to be written off as too old to run for president. …. In 2016, the Democrats are unlikely to have anyone better or more acceptable to different parts of the party.

…The nearer-term options are far-fetched.

You hope, Jon-o…

Aah, now we come to it. Here is the read-between-the-lines money line: WAIT HILLARY – DON’T RUN NOW…WE ARE TEEING YOU UP FOR 2016.

And if you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. I can assure, Alter would be no more trustworthy to cover her fairly in 2016 than he was in 2008.

Still, it was nice to see him feasting on a big crow sandwich.

What say you?

Both sides seem terrified of Trump while calling him a joke. It reminds of the Indian warrior in the film “Dances with Wolves” who screams at Kevin Costner’s soldier character at the top of his lungs: “Do you see how I am not afraid of you!!!”

Trump is a forceful competitor who is raising some interesting issues about our economy and global interactions, the “birther” issue notwithstanding. What is the harm in letting the American people decide what interests them? If he talks on long enough, voters might conclude he is a blowhard and not bother. Then they will turn him off without any help from the mainstream media. But of course, the governing elites of both parties must fear the opposite is true. Political analyst Charlie Cook recently offered that after three consecutive “wave elections,” 2012 could be the year Independents rise up and say “a pox on both their houses.”

Many have grown tired of arrogant talking heads who, happily trapped in their own echo chamber, have little awareness of what is transpiring on the ground but see fit to decide for us who is relevant and who is not.

“They” decided to trash Hillary Clinton in 2008. The hazing was non-stop and look where that got us…These self proclaimed political geniuses have now taken to criticizing the inexperienced Illinois Senator they once championed. Yet every time President Obama is in trouble in the polls, another profound pundit floats the idea that Secretary Clinton should trade places with Joe Biden and become the VP next time around. They are content to have her carry President Obama’s water, lift his numbers, and come to his rescue when she could likely do his job far better — though they will never admit it. Certainly, she would not have taken 61 golf outings and who knows how many vacations in the first two years of her presidency.

After dispensing with Hillary, the media went after Palin and now it is Trump’s turn. While each of them bring something different to the table, and one could argue they are not of equal merit, we should be able to decide for ourselves who we want — which means we need to hear all the facts first. But the American people do not get the privilege of making such a decision based on the facts of each person’s record, so loudly do their critics trumpet their negatives, while running interference for our current President much the same way they did for our last one. I used to say that President Bush was made of Teflon, but I have never seen Teflon with the thick protective coating the likes of which the media uses to shield our current chief executive.

Moreover, the alternating tactics of trumpet/trash that comprise the 24-hour news cycle are designed to manufacture crises and obscure the issues with bread and circuses rather than sharing real news. That is part of the reason it seems no punishment is ever meted out for any wrongdoing, so distracted are we with the next bit of nonsense media shoves down our throats. Now the media is shoving “The Donald” down our throats while in the same moment telling us to ignore him. Danger, Will Robinson. That tactic might backfire.

Here’s a thought…what if Donald Trump raises a couple of economic issues worth discussing by all those vying for office? What’s the harm? If pundits complain Trump steals focus from more “serious” candidates, surely they have the ability to cover those other candidates’ policy positions 24/7 and elevate their importance and profile. If the media is choosing not to do so and instead focuses on more demagoguery, is that Donald Trump’s fault? The man hasn’t even said he is running yet.

We need to open the political field up to more than the same old same old. I have no feelings about Trump, nor does that matter. What matters is that free speech be exercised and that the Hillary Clintons and Russ Feingolds and Dennis Kucinichs and Ron Pauls and Sarah Palins and Paul Ryans and yes, even the Donald Trumps of this world — have an opportunity to be heard. Along with Joe and Josephine Q. Public.

Then we can decide what is valid and important. Not the media.

People vote their pocketbooks and ultimately will make their own decision about who best addresses their concerns — that is, if they have an opportunity to hear more than just one person’s incessant drum.

And for those on both sides who are deeply offended by the “birther issue” as it has been called, it is unfortunate that the President has himself to thank for much of this, having spent so much money on lawyers to keep this information secret. While I never gave this matter credence, instead choosing to focus on President Obama’s continuation of George Bush’s policies and his lack of transparency, I can see where all his obfuscation would make even the most dubious person curious.

The President is arguably the most powerful man in the world and could obtain and present his long form BC in about five minutes — so why bother to keep this circus going? And by the way, it could be discovered President Obama is from Mars and such information would never be allowed to surface. The ramifications are too dreadful to imagine. This is no more than tilting at windmills. It will never happen. I think Donald Trump raises this issue just to make a dent in the mystical Obama narrative. No more. No less.

Just spitballing, but it is far more likely that the reason for secrecy is not to do with the place of President Obama’s birth, but something on the birth certificate he would rather not divulge. Although what the big deal secret could be, I cannot imagine.

I remain far more concerned by the world’s most media-exposed politician’s preoccupation with fundraising twenty months before the election rather than dealing with pressing problems, foreign and domestic. Where is the “fierce urgency of now” in dealing with continued joblessness, skyrocketing gas and food prices, Libya…

After hailing and helping to elect as President a man with a short resume, whose past actions and voting record contradicted his lofty campaign rhetoric, it is downright silly for the media to call anyone else a “joke.” They are going to have a hard time condemning a “celebrity candidate” when they were fine with creating one three years ago. Mainstream media and pundits on both sides have made themselves a joke. But if we continue to allow them to dictate the debate, the joke will be on us.

Update below the fold.

Of Obama campaigning. Yes, he has already started for his re-election. Blech. Oh, he just happened to show up at the Lincoln Memorial after the 11th hour agreement on the budget vote, running around, glad handing, acting like he was the one who wrote the damn thing:

Never mind that he was kicking and screaming throughout the whole process, threatening to veto an extension bill that would fund the Pentagon, thus the military, should there be a government shutdown. And never mind that the REASON we were on the verge of a government shutdown was the Democrats refusal to pass a damn budget last year when they controlled all three houses. Gee – can’t imagine why they decided not to do that, and that decision was made pretty early in the year.

And now Obama is prancing around like he did this single-handedly? Please.

It is only going to get worse from here on out. This is only the beginning of his re-election bid, which he curiously decided to launch in the midst of a boatload of serious issues facing the nation and the world (Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iran, the budget, gas prices that have doubled – DOUBLED -under Obama, and on and on).

Just as a reminder, these are some of the “highlights” toward which I imagine we can look forward, and the mature responses of his followers:

Or this:

Or how about this memorable comment:

Here’s some campaign advice for Mr. Obama, free of charge: when you are in the middle of a campaign, and you choose to go out to be among the people, including eating in a diner, when someone dares ask you a question, answer it. That’s why you are there, right? If you want an uninterrupted waffle-eating breakfast (and was that waffle ever an indicator of things to come from Obama), stay in your hotel room. I’m just saying – you might not want to get all snappy with the people you want to vote for you when you deign to mingle among them.

That is just the beginning. That doesn’t even begin to touch the ways in which Obama takes credit for actions that were not his (the list is way too long, but think back to the last election when he claimed to be on committees he wasn’t on, or bills on which he didn’t work, etc., etc.). How much worse is it going to get now that he actually got into the White House? Geez, I shudder to think.

I wonder if, maybe the second time around, the media might actually do more of its job, and ask him some real questions, like about Rezko, for instance. Or his connections to Big Oil. Yeah, I didn’t think so…

I don’t know that I can take another 1 1/2 of Obama campaigning. The last time was one time too many, if you ask me. I think I’m going to have to spend more time watching videos like this instead of watching Obama lie like a rug, calling people racists if they disagree with him, or tilting his chin up at people in the most arrogant manner possible:

Uh, yeah. This is much better, don’t you think?

**Update** My aunt mentioned to me today that Obama had been complaining about his loss of privacy. Was he ever. I knew he had complained about this before, but wow, want a little whine with that cheese, Mr. Obama? Good grief. I guess he didn’t believe Bush when he said being president was “hard work.” Hmm – I wonder if people will give Obama as hard of a time for saying this:

“I just miss – I miss being anonymous,” he said. “I miss Saturday morning, rolling out of bed, not shaving, getting into my car with my girls, driving to the supermarket, squeezing the fruit, getting my car washed, taking walks. I can’t take a walk.”

His dream, he said, was to “go through Central Park and watch folks passing by … spend the day watching people – I miss that”.

Faced with simmering criticism for playing more golf than most previous occupants of the White House, he explained that the sport was simply the best way of getting away from it all.

“It’s the only excuse I have to get outside for four hours at a stretch,” he told Hearst magazines. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Oh, freakin’ spare me. After he pulled every dirty trick in the book to get INTO the White House, from caucus fraud to vote-stealing, he’s complaining (again)? That just takes the cake…

I think this calls for another horse video, this time with a cat (this one reminds me of my Jordan playing with a teeny tiny little kitten, letting him play with his tail and everything – so cute):

See, I ask because I remember not too long ago, your party, under your leadership, did a pretty fair job of warring on women, too. You, personally, supported a far, far less qualified, experienced man for the highest office in the land over the far, far more qualified, experienced, smarter woman.

Who could forget this exchange between then-Speaker Pelosi and Greta van Susteren after the Democrats, especially Pelosi, managed to drum Clinton right out of the race? I know I can’t forget it:

[snip] VAN SUSTEREN: Let me first focus for a second on Senator Clinton. She is back on the Hill today, and many people email me and say that she is the victim of sexism–not all, but many. Did sexism play a role in this election for her, number one? And number two, I know this morning you were quoting as saying that you, sometimes, have encountered sexism.

PELOSI: I think every woman who is making progress in gaining power is probably a victim of sexism. I can’t document what happened in the presidential campaign as I am too busy being Speaker of the House and running my own races for Congress to retain and grow our Democratic majority in the House.(Emphasis mine.)

But I do not think that there is any question that there is some evidence that there was sexism in the campaign, but I can’t tell you if that is the reason why Senator Clinton won or lost.

She made a great showing. She advanced to the cause of women enormously. We were thrilled with her candidacy, not just because she is a woman, but because she is a woman with great intellect, great dedication, great stamina, that she proved she could be president of the United States.

But there was an election, and I think that Senator Clinton benefited greatly by the enthusiasm of women, there is no question about that. And I do not know what the impact of the sexism and was. I know it is a sign of insecurity on those who exercise it. I do not know what the political impact of it was. [snip]

Well, former Speaker Pelosi, let me just remind you of the scope of sexism then-Senator Clinton received, and other women, as well:

So, yeah – there was just a bit of a war against women in 2008, one perpetrated by the very ones now decrying a “war against women.” Pelosi herself contributed to it by her very actions toward Hillary Clinton, and her very support for the man who ran a sexist campaign against Hillary Clinton.

Are the Republicans above being sexist? Of course not. But they should also not be singled out for a “war against women.” Democrats share plenty to blame in that regard. Using the whole issue of choice as a constant stick to keep women in line while the top Democrat, Obama, invites members of the then-outlawed, Sharia-law demanding, “Modesty police” directing Muslim Brotherhood, while attacking OTHERS is just a bit of a stretch. At least it is for me.

How about you?

Former Sen. Russ Feingold and progressive group MoveOn today called on General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt to resign from the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness in the wake of a report that despite $14.2 billion in worldwide profits – including more than $5 billion from U.S. operations – GE did not owe taxes in 2010.

They also expressed anger over the fact that the company has cut its U.S. workforce by roughly one fifth since 2002.

“How can someone like Immelt be given the responsibility of heading a jobs creation task force when his company has been creating more jobs overseas while reducing its American workforce?” Feingold asked in an email to supporters, as The Hill reports. “And under Immelt’s direction, GE spends hundreds of millions of dollars hiring lawyers and lobbyists to evade taxes.”

MoveOn asked its members to sign a petition calling on Immelt to leave the administration, and Executive Director Justin Ruben called G.E.’s tax status “outrageous.”

“At a time when many in Washington, including the President, are worried about our nation’s deficit we should be punishing–not rewarding–companies like GE who are robbing the US Government and taxpayers of billions of dollars,” he said in a statement. “This sort of bad corporate behavior should not be rewarded with a top White House appointment.”

Why did it take the honorable Mr. Feingold so long to notice? Please forgive my cynicism but it is quite apparent that most politicians no longer speak out to help the American people – they speak out to help themselves. If indeed he does have a mind to challenge Barack Obama for the nomination in 2012, this is awfully good timing to start noticing corruption that was all too apparent to the rest of us three years ago.

Ironically, CBS also reports that President Obama has lambasted the very tax loopholes that companies like GE take advantage of. So are you telling me he is not aware of this contradiction?

The only people not aware are the ones who don’t follow the news closely enough to know the President is railing against the very people he has been helping all along. There seems to be a current bent to punish small businesses who create the bulk of jobs in this country in favor of crony capitalism and powerful über companies who wield far too much political influence as it is.

By the way, during 2008, GE owned NBC/MSNBC and also owned Newsweek. These are three organizations that morning, noon and night posted grossly favorable press to Mr. Obama in 2008 while trashing his primary opponent Hillary Clinton with a zest not before seen. That’s quite the coincidence…

MoveOn was so busy denigrating Hillary and trumpeting Obama beyond all sense, I suppose they did not notice the coincidence either. Did they not think there would be some sort of quid pro quo?

And if President Obama finally notices the “coincidence,” you can be sure he will not throw Immelt under the bus unless and until it is politically advantageous to do so.

The above photograph was taken at the Diller-von Furstenberg 2nd Annual Awards, as Chelsea presented her mother, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with the first Inspiration Award.

Some of the most poignant moments for me of the 2008 Campaign were to see Chelsea Clinton with her mother. The pride she felt, the love, the connection, was evident by the way Chelsea looked at her mother when she was speaking. This photo reminds me of those days when a woman garnered the most votes of any candidate during a primary ever.

Yes, it brought back some memories, like this one of Chelsea and her mother:

(Joe Raedle-Getty Images)

Ah, yes – those were the days. It seems appropriate during Women’s History Month to remember, to affirm, just how close we came to having a woman president for the first time in this country. And to recognize just how far we have to go to achieve true equality in this country. Sadly, more qualified, accomplished, women still have to take a back seat to younger, unqualified men. It is a sobering thought.

Given that Clinton was just awarded an Inspiration award, what should we make of it when the Secretary Clinton consistently highlights the importance of girls and women to be educated, that the very development of communities, and countries, depend on how women fare. Yet when discussing Afghanistan, women, and USAID, a senior official claims that:“Gender issues are going to have to take a back seat to other priorities. There’s no way we can be successful if we maintain every special interest and pet project. All those pet rocks in our rucksack were taking us down.” (H/t to Yttik.)

“Pet rocks”? That’s how this “senior official,” who would speak only under conditions of anonymity, describes over half the population in relation to a USAID contract in Afghanistan? And on the eve of International Women’s Day, no less?

I hope you appreciate my restraint in not writing what I really think of this man (but you can feel free to add your two cents worth about him).

Allow me to provide some context for his assholic remark, though it may make you even madder. The quote is from a Washington Post article entitled, “In Afghanistan, U.S. Shifts Strategy On Women’s Rights As It Eyes Wider Priorities.” Yes, the headline does provide a bit of a clue as to the intent, but this makes it crystal clear:

When the U.S. Agency for International Development sought bids last March for a $140 million land reform program in Afghanistan, it insisted that the winning contractor meet specific goals to promote women’s rights: The number of deeds granting women title had to increase by 50 percent; there would have to be regular media coverage on women’s land rights; and teaching materials for secondary schools and universities would have to include material on women’s rights.

Before the contract was awarded, USAID overhauled the initiative, stripping out those concrete targets. Now, the contractor only has to perform “a written evaluation of Afghan inheritance laws,” assemble “summaries of input from women’s groups” and draft amendments to the country’s civil code.

The removal of specific women’s rights requirements, which also took place in a $600 million municipal government program awarded last year, reflects a shift in USAID’s approach in Afghanistan. Instead of setting ambitious goals to improve the status of Afghan women, the agency is tilting toward more attainable measures. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Ah, yes, “attainable measures.” Right. Presumably that means turning the other way when girls get acid thrown in their faces by the Taliban. Or when women are killed through “honor” killings. I could go on, but I trust you get the idea.

So a senior official refers to women as “pet rocks” in a discussion of how USAID, which falls under the State Department, has thrown women under the bus in their contract requirements. Wow.

I remember well those days, just three short years ago, when Hillary Clinton was amassing the most votes of anyone ever in the history of the country. I remember well the excitement of women, children, and men alike that this incredible, capable, intelligent, qualified woman had surfaced in a run for the White House. And I remember well how the media, the DNC, and Obama himself, worked to destroy her by any means necessary, including massive misogyny at every turn.

And then she went to work for him.

The issues that affect women and girls has always been of the greatest importance to Hillary Clinton. Or at least they were until she became Secretary of State under the least qualified man ever to sit in the White House, pushed over the far more qualified woman. The issues that always meant so much to her, to us, now take a back seat as “special interests.” Over half the population in the world has been reduced to a “pet rock.” Holy moley.

I have never been inspired by a politician the way I was by Hillary Clinton. I have never donated so much time, money, or energy as I did for Hillary Clinton. Two years ago, I would have said, “hell to the yes” she deserves an Inspiration Award. But when her department fails to do what is right for women in Afghanistan, or Egypt, or Libya, or Iran, or anywhere else in the world, because women are seen as “special projects,” not worthy of full humanity, well, I find that less than inspiring.

Frankly, I find it disturbing. How about you?